Ciao TonyM
Right. You reflect my point.
Whilst HansWobbe plays with using unique unusual markers you are using a
SHORTHAND.
That to gain better traction on markup you use BESPOKE smart INNOVATIONS on
markup.
This is not different than what I am saying. Its IMPLICITLY instancing it.
I think what I am trying to get at is to EXPLICITLY extend this into COMMON
KNOWLEDGE &, maybe, easier usage.
Best wishes
Josiah
On Sunday, 17 December 2017 02:07:30 UTC+1, TonyM wrote:
>
> Josiah,
>
> I understand this is important to you and I support your endeavour,
> however it is less important to me. One reason is what I have already done
> the following for myself using CSS and searching.
>
> For example
>
> in My StyleSheet I define Question .q and Answer .a (and more of course)
>
> .q { color: orange;
> }
>
> .a { color: blue;
> }
>
>
> Then there is a multitude of places I can add .q or .a to indicate a question
> or answer, you can do more by introducing font awesome, in the css to
> introduce letters and symbols.
>
>
> My Favourite is
>
>
> ;.q a question
>
> :.a and answer
>
>
> I then have a Q&A tiddler containing
>
>
> !!Tiddlers containing one or more questions
> <<list-links filter:"[!is[system]search[.q ]] -[[Q&A]] -[[MyStylesheet]]">>
>
> !!Tiddlers containing one or more answers
> <<list-links filter:"[!is[system]search[.a ]] -[[Q&A]] -[[MyStylesheet]]">>
>
>
> And a Footer in view template which lists all Q&As when found in a tiddler
>
> Note:The count is not working correctly
>
>
> <$list filter="[all[current]search[.q ]limit[1]]" variable=null>
> @@.q Tiddler contains (
> <$list filter="[all[current]search[.q ]]" variable=null>
> <$count filter="[all[current]search[.q ]]"></$count>+
> </$list>) Question(s) @@
> </$list> <$list filter="[all[current]search[.a ]limit[1]]" variable=null>
> @@.a Tiddler contains (
> <$list filter="[all[current]search[.a ]]" variable=null>
> <$count filter="[all[current]search[.a ]]"></$count>+
> </$list>) Answer(s)@@
> </$list>
>
>
> I suppose one point is in this case "." is the delimiter when used in certain
> places, from there I have many characters or even full words I can use to
> define almost anything which alters appearance once rendered and can be
> searched for.
>
>
> I do not feel constrained in anyway, and eventually I will create an Edit
> Toolbar option to make things into Questions, Answers or Q&A Pairs.
>
>
> and @@.q also works @@ inside text
>
>
> To me this is *Making YOUR OWN Shorthand Markup SYSTEM [and it is] simple in
> TW too.*
>
> I do not feel my options have all being eaten.
>
>
> Can you give a few simple yet specific examples you would like available to
> you?
>
>
> Regards
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 17 December 2017 04:41:22 UTC+11, @TiddlyTweeter wrote:
>>
>> This is almost a manifesto (*I may change my mind tomorrow*). But I hope
>> it will ring some bells.
>>
>> 1 - SCEPTICISM
>>
>> I'm sceptical WikiText & other current simple markup and Markdown systems
>> are anything special. Their utility lays in that they aren't: MEANING, they
>> are foundations but not the final building.
>>
>> That does NOT mean that I think SHORTHAND is not relevant. It IS. Very.
>> But is should be a DODDLE (very easy) of improvisation, not a labour of
>> slavery to the past.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Making YOUR OWN Shorthand Markup SYSTEM should be simple in TW too. It
>> isn't. It could be.*
>>
>> *IMO USER shorthand markup is the way ahead that addresses what MD and
>> WikiText lack and which TiddlyWiki can provide EASILY.*
>>
>> When Gruber introduced Markdown (MD) it was a very elegant solution to
>> formatting EMAIL. Gruber & Swartz reasoned that markup should allow plain
>> texts to remain readable even when marked-up. Excellent aim.
>>
>> As long as your write nothing outside their syntax it works well still.
>>
>> And it covers about 20% of actual writing forms. Its excellent but VERY
>> limited. NOW.
>>
>> A problem, not noted much about Wiki markup systems generally, is the
>> FINITE number of special universal characters available that make visually
>> semantic sense.
>>
>> This is very clear with markers like "*" "#" and "_". They had semantic
>> resonance before the web as markers. If you look at the simpler markup
>> systems you'll quickly see they hit a limit where they can't find any new
>> characters that have the semantic clarity of those Founding Glyphs.
>>
>> Basically All Decent Characters have been eaten already. So "simple
>> markup" (READABLE) became "more complex markup" (LESS READABLE) anyway.
>>
>> That *symbolic paucity of available characters on the keyboard has
>> itself limited growth of simple markup IMO *to its detriment. It has not
>> kept up with webby expression well.
>>
>> A long time has passed. The net is way ahead of the original intent of
>> those systems now. And MD's LIMITED scope is now as much about EATING IT,
>> DIGESTING it INTO other more EXPANSIVE formats. Its a BIT of something
>> else. It is NOT a* Ding an sich* to do simpler markup in real usage. Its
>> a mixture. A morph. a mash-up. A blend. A MORE THAN it.
>>
>> In other words MD is a limited formatting system with good utility still
>> for limited objectives. Its boring. Clean(ish). And easily supported. And
>> NEEDS extensions it itself does not support to be credit worthy.
>>
>> Maybe more later.
>>
>> Josiah
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/20d91b8e-a1f9-41b4-99b3-57b0979d695c%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
